1912395 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of China, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to China, as required for the grant of a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee under s 36(2)(a) of the Act, or eligible for complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to China.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claim that he had borrowed money from loan sharks, was unable to repay the high interest, and was subsequently beaten and threatened with death. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail regarding the alleged assault, the perpetrators, or the extent of his injuries, nor had he demonstrated that the threats were linked to any of the protected grounds under s 5J(1)(a) of the Act. Furthermore, the article submitted by the applicant concerning loan sharking in Northwest China was deemed not directly applicable to the applicant's situation in Central China, and its age and the effectiveness of subsequent government measures were uncertain. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm, and therefore did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa).

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.